|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-24-12 | | Everett: 2nd to none? No one was second to none in the 60's.
We can all cherry-pick numbers. He was top 4-5 in '72. Tied 1st with Petrosian at Las Palmas in '73, his only major event in his final year. And he was still dropping miniatures on GMs left and right. Suit yourself if you feel Stein wasn't worthy of the company of the very top echelon of chessplayers. |
|
Aug-24-12
 | | Eggman: <<2nd to none? No one was second to none in the 60's.>> How can no one be second to none?? |
|
Aug-24-12
| | Eggman: Pooh. Maybe "second-to-none" isn't the phrase I wanted. I always thought it meant "unsurpassed" as opposed to "unequalled", but looking up the definition at various sources, it appears to mean the latter. What I meant by it is that no one is better, even if others are your equals. In the mid '60s or thereabouts, Stein seemed to have no superiors - equals, yes, but no superiors. But I don't think you could say that about him by, say, '68-'73. That is what I've been trying to say. By '68-'73, he had fallen away a bit, and was no longer "unsurpassed." Unfortunate choice of words on my part. Pooh. |
|
Aug-24-12
 | | harrylime: I know this is Boris' page, but looking at the above arguments history will just see the 60's as Fischers' era .. End of. |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | Broon Bottle: Really? Fischer's era? I think looking at the posts u will see what a rich era it was. Fischer was a meteor: short lived. Tal burned almost as bright for far longer etc etc |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | Broon Bottle: And. Lest we forget. What's happening Boris, old bean? |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: ^^^
<looking at the posts> ???! lol lol Since when does that define an era ?
And I love Tal too , but what you say is ridiculous here also.. History will see the 60's as Fischer's .. No matter what rubbish you post on this site. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | Eggman: <<History will see the 60's as Fischer's>> The '60s is already history, n'est pas? I mean, where talking 40-50 years ago, right? It seems to me that the '60s is regarded as a rich era not dominated by anyone. When is this perspective going to change? |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | Kinan: 60s is Fischer's era? What history see that? the American history? |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | Everett: It's all good <eggman>. We are basically on the same page even if we quibble over Stein. <It seems to me that the '60s is regarded as a rich era not dominated by anyone. When is this perspective going to change?> Not sure if it needs to. It was a great time for chess. I think from '85 - '96 was also a great time, with Kasparov on top, Karpov still incredibly strong, and Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk and the rest coming up. And now it great, too. |
|
Aug-24-12
 | | perfidious: <Eggman: ....unlike many here, I've always been suspicious of ChessMetrics, and certainly don't consider it to be the final word. If there were a similarly detailed, well organized Elo site, I think ChessMetrics would be all but ignored....> Like yourself, I've held a sceptical attitude towards CM and use it as a general guide, not the be-all and end-all. Whilst some of its conclusions can certainly be challenged (such as Maroczy being world number one for a time), it can come in useful. If FIDE had made use of the Elo system as early as ca 1950, it would have proven edifying. |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | Petrosianic: For most of chess history before 1970, it's the ONLY word. That still doesn't make it definitive, of course, and it has problems (people being the #1 player in the world, who never knew they were), but there isn't any other tool for gauging relative performance in those times. But that may not be true forever. The talk about using computer analysis to gauge "Intrinsic Performance Ratings" will be very interesting when it produces more data. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: Regardless of what is expressed on this great site.. I'm afraid the 60's and the years blurring into the 70's wiil be seen as Fischers' .. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | Eggman: <<perfidious>> It's interesting that you single out, of all things, Maroczy being #1, because this is probably quite a respectable (though rarely made) claim. To quote The Oxford Companion to Chess: "After Lasker, then world champion, Maroczy was the most successful player in the first few years of the 20th Century." More controversial than Maroczy being #1 is the fact that, for example in the May 1906 list, Lasker is #8 (!), but Sonas, rightly or wrongly, deducts 5 or 6 points for every month that a player is inactive, and Lasker could be one inactive sum'bitch. I think Maroczy deserves to be on the list of greatest players never to contest the world championship, though he is often overlooked. It seems that after his match agreement with Lasker fell through, he lost his ambition and started turning in poor results. But for a time he was red hot. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | Eggman: <<harrylime>> Of course the early '70s were Fischer's time - and how. But what do you mean by <<the years blurring into the 70's>>? Fischer, as I'm sure you know, played precisely one game in 1969. And in the 26 games he played in 1968, he wasn't exactly butting heads with the greats - no Spassky, no Petrosian, no Korchnoi, no Tal, no Geller, no Stein, no Larsen, no Botvinnik, no Bronstein ... I don't think one can say that Fischer was *clearly* number one until the early '70s, when his number-oneness was suddenly clearer than that of anyone in history. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: Fischer was the best chess player in the world by 1967 for sure.. and maybe before too. He was chess.
Ideas.. Innovations.. Charisma.. Wins.. Legend.. Aesthectics.. |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | TheFocus: Saidy vs Fischer, 1969 Played in November 1968, not 1969. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: Fischer was the best player in the world in the mid 60's.. He was frozen out by the Soviet domination of FIDE .. But he WAS the best chess player in the world then.. |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | TheFocus: <harry> What exactly are you trying to say? |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | achieve: ... and simuls ...
harrylime, where does all this knowledge and wisdom come from? Please tell. There's just a lack of useful comparative data for almost a decade. Fischer's (3 to-)4 years of fame are predated by a rather slim/poor tournament record, outside the US. |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | achieve: Never mind, probably we'll now be hearing stories about the "love-in" here, and similar sentimental junk. Note to "self":
Better take a nap. ;) |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: <Focus> Fischer was the best chess player in the world before 1970 .. Fischer was the best chess player in the world by 1966. Maybe 1965. |
|
Aug-24-12
| | harrylime: <achieve>
Yep..
Fischer just appeared in 1970 and for two years dominated chess and became the greatest chess player of all time due to those two years ... You're bang on. lol lol |
|
| Aug-24-12 | | achieve: <Harry> I am aware of Havana 1965, Santa Monica 1966, but as was pointed out days ago, Fischer didn't win those, and from memory twice Spassky was his daddy in that period. Not taking away anything of Fischer's potential and achievements, he didn't play first fiddle on the world stage in the mid-60's. |
|
| Aug-25-12 | | Kinan: Fischer became the greatest player of all time because of few years?
Hell, I can win a tournament and then retire and claim to be the best in history.
Sorry Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine, all these long years being number one don't count. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
